You're not their target audience.
Isn't it a bigger issue that even if people agree on the facts, the law can be mushy with concepts like "reasonable" such that two people can reasonably disagree on what is reasonable given the same facts?
Yep this is hacker news.
So without alternative argument from other legal professionals it is safe to assume that the legal professionals who crafted the statement, do so for it's effectiveness in achieving their goal, which is winning this suit and not for PR or convincing you personally.
AI, or even sentiment analysis, could easily filter non-factual posturing from statements of objective fact. Of course, people can filter it too, you never see this type of crap slip in to an academic journal.
I think if an AI auto-highlighted social-judgements it could revolutionize how a lot of things are read (a news article, HN, etc)
Moreover, the a lot of that legalese is generated directly or indirectly by the propensity of chancers with lawyers launching frivolous suits. So if I was a judge, I would be quite happy to read a nice explanation of how silly the plaintiff is being.
POTUS would disagree. Civility and basic courtesy are no longer popular. Such is the world we now live in.
Edit: Anyone care to dispute this? I don't agree with it, but I'm also not willing to ignore it.
"But wacky match would have you believe their lowball offer was anything but the offer of a loser! sad!"
I mean, for crying out loud...
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/13/638161148/in-presidential-twe...
C'est la vie.
It will allow those around you to have this thing called respect, which still is held dear by many.
Or, more concisely, hate the game, not the player.
I'm not perfect, far from it, but I try to fail graciously before I choose to stray from doing the right thing.
That said, I absolutely do recognize that that is a luxury that not everyone has given their situation. However, I do think that some use that to justify not having to do the right thing in cases where that isn't actually true, and that at least striving to always do right, but sometimes failing to do the right thing due to circumstances is a better approach in the long term versus minmaxing immediate returns because doing the right thing is inconvenient.
Or I'm hopelessly naive.
Or somewhere between those.
On the other hand, if it's something like "hey we're gassing the jews" or "we're bombing schoolbusses full of children," then hopefully you're doing everything you can to fight against it (though, emperically, most of us will just go along).
On Twitter and TV, he speaks the way he does to maximize attention and media coverage. He has found that evading basic courtesy is an effective way to use those media to his advantage.
In the context of a court statement or other official correspondence, I doubt you'd see him use such colorful language (indeed, check official White House correspondence signed by Trump: he doesn't).
"So and so could have been a butt-head but they weren't!"
Russian interference couldn't have tipped the balance (assuming it even did) if it hadn't been within range in the first place.
Despite everything that was known before the election, he was elected. And he delivered on the major promises to his core supporters (Supreme Court, tax cuts, hard on immigration, rolling back regulations, etc).
Uber is a great tech example of the same phenomenon. Many people on HN who rail about Uber's dubious business practices still use their services because it's convenient or because it is the cheapest. They may dislike the business but they aren't voting with their wallets. Uber "gets away" with slimy practices because "ends justify the means"
(I really think there are lots of comments that are "blatantly illiterate", in that they respond to a meaning that is just obviously not in the parent. I guess that only kind of breaks the assume good faith guideline, as they are missing the meaning rather than mischaracterizing it.)
The point of the question is whether the userbase has been trained to respond aggressively to only a subset of low signal comments.
FWIW: when you deal with the quantity of this stuff that we do, "agree with" doesn't enter into it. It's not even in the same solar system. No one could sustain the cognitive load of having to agree or disagree with that many things.